Since he was the key to that disastrous eminent domain decision, I hope all his mountains have star bucks, McDonalds, and other fast food joints every fifty feet. It is deveopment of wasted and dilapidated land. Developers hould be able to crate profit from waste.

It's been noted on a couple of other blogs that Specter's defection could actually make it harder for Obama to nominate candidates, because in order to break a filibuster in the Judiciary committee that nominees have to go through, at least one minority member of the committee must consent. Specter is on that committee and as a Republican was the most likely minority member to do so. But now he's not in the minority any more so he can't. The other members are: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn. As I understand it, at least one of them will have to consent to break a filibuster in the committee.

Interesting, if true. It would be an amusing coincidence, that's for sure.

Yes, Sofa, that is a great point, but either Hatch or Graham will cave, and that right soon. Otherwise, it would make for a highly entertaining summer.

Obama will eventually get his way, but oh the joy of pissed off liberals - Rachel Maddow peeing on the air! - while the minority members of the Senate judiciary Committee sit on their hands for a while. Keith Olbermann will literally cry. Or cuss!

I expect O. to nominate and the Senate to confirm a complete loon -- one that reinterprets the constitution to suit their own preferences and who looks far afield outside our own legal construct to incorporate foreign conceptualizations of what law should be. I fully expect the nominee to suffer tax-related challenges. Now, what in the world would cause me to hold such bizarre expectations? But all of that is fine. As they said of Rome when Rome got Tiberius and Caligula, and Cla Cla Cla Claudius, and Nero -- Rome gets what Rome deserves.

I always got from Souter the impression that he didn't much care for being justice, maybe it was the crack about feeling lobotomized whenever court was in session, nor, it seemed did he much care for the person who nominated him. He might not miss the court, and that's fine too, but I for one will not be missing him.

One can hope. It be strange times we live in when the State can take away an American citizens property for the 'greater good' and turn around and grant Consitutional protections to foreign terrorists whose sole goal is our destruction.

I think its odd that so many commenters here are sneering at the idea of appointing a woman. I don't think demographics should play much of a role in Supreme Court appointments but there is only one woman on the court. I don't think we need the bench to perfectly reflect the population, but one!? I don't believe that the "most qualified" (whatever that means) people have all been men.

Yeah, Beth, that's how democracies can vote themselves a President for Life.

Liberals on this blog sneered when I called candidate Obama a socialist. Now that the US owns GM, now that it has been nationalized, what say you?

Nothing.

Kiss our country goodbye?Hell, we crossed that Rubicon 100 days ago or so.

Next step: control of the press, though already 99% accomplished by sheer sycophancy. Will no one rid him of the troublesome Fox? Maybe Anderson Cooper can help, at least when he finishes demonstrating to Obama what teabagging means.

Yes, it's no longer the USA when Gitmo detainees are released into the US and can apply for welfare that I am obliged to fund, but the gummint considers tax protesters potential terrorists.

@JH I don't believe that the "most qualified" (whatever that means) people have all been men.

The most qualified chess players have been men; the most qualified mathematicians have been men; the most qualified physicists have been men.

It has to do with what the gender finds is a satisfying complete obsession.

The argument would have to be that constitutional interpretation requires some other skill than the ones that get honing and satisfaction from things like these, if you want to argue something like balance is in fact some kind of balance.

The only thing interesting will be whether the nominee recieves the typical 90+ votes generally afforded democrat nomineees or will more than just a few some senate republicans play the "its the end of America" card as was done by democrats with Roberts and Alito.

"Joseph Hovsep said... I think its odd that so many commenters here are sneering at the idea of appointing a woman. I don't think demographics should play much of a role in Supreme Court appointments but there is only one woman on the court. I don't think we need the bench to perfectly reflect the population, but one!? I don't believe that the "most qualified" (whatever that means) people have all been men."

Thank you, Joseph. However, I get the impression that at heart, Obama is old-school sexist. I will be pleasantly surprised if he picks a woman.

The future will be bright for Con Law discussions as the morphing Constitution complies itself with the hope and change world of The Revolution. Who can oppose such power? The first Obama appointment may be a World Court justice to bring us into the more sophisticated world of rule by international standards.

A few words are required. If the rumors are true this time, as they appear to be, Justice Souter's departure into lower case letters is sad news.

When the court divided, I usually disagreed with Souter's conclusions, and his view of how legal interpretation ought to be done is not mine--hence why we often come to different conclusions. Nevertheless, he gets high marks from me. While I often have an opinion about what the court ought to do, I read the court’s output trying to understand what it has done, why, and where it’s going next; any time Souter wrote, I could rely on him to help me out, because he was one of the most consistently clear and effective writers on the court. Even Justice Scalia has off days (his ultimately correct but atrociously-written opinion in the FCC case this week, for example), but Souter almost invariably turns out opinions clearly and concisely conveying what his view is and why. I was often pleased to be able to agree with him, but either way, there are so many cases - even cases where I think he came out wrong - where it was Souter’s opinion that snapped the issues into focus in my mind (this was usually true of cases written by Kennedy over a Souter dissent--Garcetti, for example).

Justice Souter was a worthy successor to Justice Brennan, but I don't hold that against him. He was an incisive, candid, and useful questioner at oral argument, and I will miss the clarity he brought to the court’s output. If he must go, I regret it, but wish him a long and happy retirement, and hope to see him sitting by designation in the Seventh Circuit from time to time.

Your "whatever that means" says all that needs to be said about the validity of your opinion on the matter.Its simply not possible to say this judge or that judge is the single most qualified person for the post. There are many people who are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court who bring different kinds of qualifications and strengths. Thinking we should treat the Supreme Court appointment process like a civil service exam where the applicant with the most points wins is naive and irrational.

Big deal. Maybe his attitude was that the Democratic Party left him rather than the other way around.

The GOP has plenty of moderates. Evidently your idea of moderate is someone who votes 1/3 of the time with the other side. If you have that much difference between your chosen party platform then Independent is the way to go.

The GOP has plenty of moderates. Evidently your idea of moderate is someone who votes 1/3 of the time with the other side.

Not just 1/3 of the time. The 1/3 of the votes that are the most important, like SCOTUS appointments and the Porkulus. Where you can kick your own party in the face as you preen in front of the press. That's not a moderate. That's an egomaniac.

"I expect President Obama to put a strong liberal in the seat, and I think there should be a strong liberal on the Court."A decade ago I would have agreed as I believe balance on the court is good for the country.

However, liberal has now evolved to become synonymous with leftist in America.

And it is entirely possible, even probable, that Obama will nominate, and the Senate will approve, an activist leftist justice as opposed to a truly liberal justice.

You must not be a mathematician yourself or you would have heard of Hypatia of Alexandria -- particularly of her murder by a Christian mob -- or Emilie du Chatelete or Sofie Kovalevskaya. If you write code you would have heard of Ada, Countess Lovelace. A significant number of people believe that Einstein was too weak a mathematician to have formulated his Theory of Relativity without a great deal of help from his then wife, Mileva Maric. Considering his difficulty grasping the mathematics behind quantum mechanics, I find this to be plausible.

As recently as the late 1970's women in mathematics or the hard sciences faced exceptional hurdles getting positions in their field, and it's no coincidence that the women I cited above were born into comfortable circumstances and had parents who either supported them or at least left them alone.

EKC, if you are comparing our situation, with a sitting justice retiring, and the elected president proposing a replacement that must be confirmed by the country's elected representatives to Chavez' actions in Venezuala, then you have lost your fucking mind. I have just one word for you: Deeeeee-ranged.

Beth said... EKC, if you are comparing our situation, with a sitting justice retiring, and the elected president proposing a replacement that must be confirmed by the country's elected representatives to Chavez' actions in Venezuala, then you have lost your fucking mind. I have just one word for you: Deeeeee-ranged.

12:25 PM.

Why can't the US be compared to any other country?

Are Latin Americans too inferior to be compared to you?

Is that what you are implying?

And you obviously have no idea about what has happened in Venezuela since 1999. There is a direct correlation there, but apparently you lack the necessary knowledge on foreign affairs to see it.

You can be sure that Obama will not be tempted to try for a middle of the roader, or a strict constitutionalist. He will choose from the activist community - the Ayres side of the coin. the repercussions to electing this man will last for decades.

He is about changing the landscape and has no respect for his own country.

Chavez has had his political opponents arrested. He's moved to take over his country's press. He is using the mechanisms of democracy as excuses for his despotic ambitions.

Obama has the opportunity to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. This is normal. Just because your preferred candidate lost the election does not mean the U.S. is now governed by a despot. This is how government works in a country with free and fair elections - sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. The world keeps turning.

You can compare the U.S. to any country you like, but when you make hysterical, bullshit comparisons, prepare to be called on it.

Leah Ward Sears would do a good job. We could do alot worse. Then there would be two Savannah, Ga raised African Americans serving together. She is a smart lady and is not nearly as liberal as the Progressives want to see on the court.

That's right, Beth, because Chávez started arresting those who opposed him right off the bat. No, he first made enemies of those in the media who did not follow his dictum. Funny, he first attacked those who refused to broadcast his tirades, first subtly, then outright.

He then moved on the country's election authorities. And he has his supporters intimidate and manipulate the outcome of elections. And, right, that has not happened here...not during the Texas primaries as documented by J Althouse Cohen and other people...at all...right...

Chavez also changed the supreme court. Everyone in there is a supporter. That could never happen here, right.

And you say:

He is using the mechanisms of democracy as excuses for his despotic ambitions.

What, other than your blind faith, could preven The One from doing the same?

Checks and balances, EKC. A Constitution with robust protection of the rights to assembly and expression. A people who are not disposed to the cult of personality and strongman politics. A 233-year history of freedom from tyranny, despite regular cycles of change in what parties are in power.

Face it, the GOP is DEAD politically. Its core constituencies are both shrinking and splintering. The energy is going to end up in third-party movements while the inertia stays with the GOP, which, in our first-past-the-post election system, guarantees electoral victory for the Democrats. They already have total control over all levers of government. There is really nothing but their own commitment to good government to stop them from doing anything they want.

A Constitution with robust protection of the rights to assembly and expression.

In a nation with a strong government like ours, those rights are only as strong as the commitment of the judiciary to recognize them and of the executive to enforce them.

A people who are not disposed to the cult of personality and strongman politics.Of course...there's no cult of personality surrounding Obama...I'm sure all people were just fainting from heat exhaustion.

A 233-year history of freedom from tyranny, despite regular cycles of change in what parties are in power.

Aren't we all supposed to be expecting CHANGE!!!!!!!!1111oneone

Was it all lies?

Plus, aren't you forgetting about the last eight years of tyranny from the King George the McChimpy Bushitler reign of terror? I thought that it proved "it CAN happen here?" Not so much anymore?

I hope those checks and balances work, but how effective are they when one political party has all the power?EKC, once more, you can find 233 of US history to answer your question. This is not the first time there has been one party with majorities in the House and Senate, and a president in the White House. Your rhetorical questions have answers. Why do you have so little confidence in America and its government?

I fully expect the Obama administration will make as much as it can of executive power, just as the Bush administration did. When he does, call him on it. Call the White House. Call your reps. Blog. Vote. Organize. Be part of the representative democracy - it's a wonderful thing, even though it fails to reach its full grasp sometimes. We keep swinging back to equilibrium.

If there's a failure of the two-party system right now, how is that the fault of liberals, or Democrats? A party that can make policies and offer candidates that appeal to the American middle will compete. There's plenty about Democrats to turn off plenty of people - there's a market for a second strong party. Maybe it will continue to be the GOP, maybe not. The Demorats are no less vulnerable than the GOP - right now they're in the majority, but that can change in any election cycle.

EKC, anytime the GOP held the House, Senate and White House. But, I concede, they didn't have the game-changing opinion of actress/comedian Janeanne Garafolo behind them, so all that power was for naught.

This is not the first time there has been one party with majorities in the House and Senate, and a president in the White House. Your rhetorical questions have answers. Why do you have so little confidence in America and its government?

Things are different. Apprehension is not unwarranted. Excluding WWII, The government is bigger than it ever has been. It owns more of the nation's economy than it ever has - and they want to own a lot more. It controls more resources than it ever has before. It employs more people, prosecutes more crimes, prints more money and redistributes more wealth than it ever did during one of those previous periods you speak of.

Don't we know by now that past performance is no guarantee of future results?

Beth said... EKC, anytime the GOP held the House, Senate and White House. But, I concede, they didn't have the game-changing opinion of actress/comedian Janeanne Garafolo behind them, so all that power was for naught.

3:30 PM.

Your sneer is noted, but you cannot deny that they never had filibuster proof power, nor did they have the media so completely enchanted, or feeling tingles up their legs. Did they?

And if you are afraid of how much power the Democrats have right now, then reform the Republic party so that offers good-faith solutions to the problems people care about (health care, jobs) with articulate spokespeople promoting those solutions.

Republican presidents have nominated moderate and ostensibly conservative justices who fairly quickly swung to the left. Wouldn't it be sweet to see the opposite happen?

JFK's appointment of Justice White might qualify.

That phenomenon actually seems a bit odd to me since there is a general rule of thumb that people get more conservative (or more conservative compared to the world they live in) as they get older. So, I would think justices would be more likely to appear to swing to the right than the left with age.

And if you are afraid of how much power the Democrats have right now, then reform the Republic party so that offers good-faith solutions to the problems people care about (health care, jobs) with articulate spokespeople promoting those solutions.

You know full well it wouldn't make a difference. Ridicule, mockery, and lies will defeat a dispassionate policy proposal any day of the week, and twice on the Sunday morning news shows.

Obama can't count on having a filibuster proof backing. It will depend on the issue; there are a lot of conservative-leaning Dems from the South and the West that don't fall right into his pocket.

As far as "the press loves him," all I can say is, is that all you have?

The GOP failed to hold onto enough seats. They ought to work on figuring out why. Instead, the tactic seems to be raising hysterical fears of tyranny. Maybe that's why your side didn't do well in this election. People are tired of that crap.

Beth, you obviously don't remember previous threads. My side, didn't have a chance to win elections, that's why I was willing (had I not been too late to become a US citizen) to vote for the GOP ticket. It was, to me, the lesser of two evils.

I recognized how bloated and corrupted the GOP had become. Sadly, that was preferable to having this megalomaniac socialist in the WH.

I remember telling Venezuelan friends in 1998 that they would regret voting for Chavez. I also remember their reaction telling me that it could not happen in their country. They didn't call me hysterical, after all, they had better manners than you. Ten years later, those same friends find themselves as refugees from what they helped create. Now they deny even voting for him the first time around.

To your point of the media bias being all I have, it is a false one. I have already mentioned the other factors. However, one cannot dismiss the importance of having 90% of the media on your side. Otherwise, how could one then explain historical facts like the demise of the Weimar Republic or, again (I won't drop it) Chavez's rise to power. Read the available archives of the now opposition newspaper El Universal from 1998. That should be telling enough.

EKC, yes, I do find your rhetoric hysterical. You're all out of proportion. When I questioned your comparison of our current president's opportunity to appoint a new SC justice to Chavez' actions in Venezuala, you immediately accused me of find Latins "inferior." You'll have to pardon me if I take your comments with a very big grain of salt from now on. You lost a lot of credibility with me when you jumped to that inane conclusion.

I have more faith in the American people, and in the design of our republic, than you do. You can point to a hundred failures of governments over history, and the rise of tyrannies in their place, but that means little. Saying "Germany fell!" doesn't say anything about the U.S. Despite eras that have suffered economic depression, corruption, racism, civil war and war abroad, terrorist attacks on our own soil, and breaches of our civil liberties in response to these types of events,, we have always persisted in a peaceful exchange of power. That hasn't happened by accident. This is what it means to be American at the core.

It's understandable to dislike the results of an election. It's hysterical to start crying tyranny when there is no such thing happening.

Despite eras that have suffered economic depression, corruption, racism, civil war and war abroad, terrorist attacks on our own soil, and breaches of our civil liberties in response to these types of events,, we have always persisted in a peaceful exchange of power. That hasn't happened by accident. This is what it means to be American at the core.

I think the argument is a little more subtle than claiming (as many did about Bush) that Obama will simply declare himself emperor and cancel the elections. It's that we may be entering an indefinite period in which the government is greatly expanding in scope and power AND that simultaneously there will be no viable opposition. You don't have to cancel elections if your opposition is disorganized and split between two or more parties, and you have the ability to keep it that way.

And the more disorganized your opposition, the less of a plurality of the vote you need. It's not hard to imagine a scenario wherein the GOP splinters into two parties and the Democrats routinely win elections with far less than a majority of the vote. What's worse, as the government gets larger and larger, it generates more and more dependency on it. Dependency that makes it nearly impossible to for opposition parties to win elections, especially opposition parties that aim to decrease that dependency. At some point a majority of the population finds itself content to economically exploit the minority. Mightn't we be reaching that point? How does the minority have any hope whatsoever of winning an election against its own exploitation?

Joseph Hovsep said... And if you are afraid of how much power the Democrats have right now, then reform the Republic party so that offers good-faith solutions to the problems people care about (health care, jobs) with articulate spokespeople promoting those solutions.Good point. Republicans got their clocks cleaned as spokesmen of a very small band of intolerant Religious Right zealots, social Darwinists posing as libertarians, free trade globalists that openly despise US workers, a deregulated Wall Street, reckless spending while using foreign debt to lower taxes, and people that demanded other American's kids fight an endless series of wars to "liberate Freedom-lovers".

Along the way, they thought that the proper response to 1/7th going on 1/6th of Americans w/o health insurance, hispanics, Unions, workers losing their jobs to Open Borders, independents & moderate women with the Republicans on 80% of the issues was to:

"screw off." "We don't need you, you pollute the Party of Reagan!" (which of course would come as a big surprise to Reagan)

And even after 2006 and 2008, two of their biggest campaigns are to:

1. Rid the Party of RINOs outside the Old Confederacy.

2. Write out the awful Mormons who are heretics against the idea that all Good Republicans must claim Jesus as their personal savior. Even if that hurts them badly out West.

[People forget it wasn't Reagan that saved Republicans after the Goldwater debacle. It was Nixon and moderates like George Romney, Gov Scranton who built the 1st Silent Majority ...quashing down the Goldwater nuts. Reagan added to the Silent majority his moderate Democratic ethnics, union workers, security Moms, raised taxes when he had to, avoided miserable long wars...and tossed a few bones to the Religious zealots and such while warning them that their cultural wars should never violate his 11th Commandment.

Specter's defection could actually make it harder for Obama to nominate candidates, because in order to break a filibuster in the Judiciary committee that nominees have to go through, at least one minority member of the committee must consent. Specter is on that committee and as a Republican was the most likely minority member to do so. But now he's not in the minority any more so he can't. The other members are: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn. As I understand it, at least one of them will have to consent to break a filibuster in the committee.All of those Republicans have 100% pro-life voting records and 0% rating from NARAL. If Obama wants to avoid a filibuster, he's going to have to pick a stealth candidate who isn't obviously pro-choice.

An awesome pick for him, in my opinion, would be somebody like Akhil Reed Amar. Not just an awesome pick for him but for the country. What a brilliant mind.